djphoto

All the above are good. Bambi Cantrell has a new one out on digital wedding photography. Marcus Bell's new book, "Master's Guide to Wedding Photography" is highly recommended by Jeff Ascough (and by me too, FWIW).

Oops! Sorry guys! I must have wandered into 1992 by mistake. Watch out for those dinosaurs, now.

Jeff, thanks for taking your time to do this "interview." I also read your posts on the Digital Wedding Forum and always find them very thoughtful and helpful.

 

I've been shooting weddings a long time -- longer than you, in fact, though not nearly as well. Except for the early years, when I had only a twin-lens reflex, camera handling has always been a problem for me. I would be interested to know how you work: do you work with one camera and lens at a time, or do you have two or more bodies with different lenses hanging on your person? Also, how do you keep your equipment close at hand? Do you use a conventional bag, or one of the belt systems?

 

To expand the above question a bit, what do you take with you to a wedding, and what do you actually keep close at hand?

 

Sometimes I miss the simplicity of the TLR days. Whenever I picked up the Rollei it always had the right lens mounted. (Or the wrong one, depending on how you look at it!)

 

Thanks in advance for your answer.

 

Dave Jenkins

If you want to shoot both film and digital, by all means do so with my blessing. Having worked that way during my transition into digital, I can tell you from personal experience that mixing film and digital workflows gives you the worst of both worlds.

Robbie, if you spend $300 or whatever per wedding on film and processing, that will reduce your taxable income by that amount. It doesn't mean you reduce the taxes by $300 -- it just means you don't pay tax on the $300 (or whatever amount it may be).

 

I certainly build the cost of post-processing into the rates I charge, and for commercial work, I bill it separately. You should too.

 

I shot film from 1968 to 2003. I haven't shot any since, nor do I wish to. As far as I'm concerned, digital is better in just about every conceivable way. But others have differing opinions. So by all means, shoot whatever you like and whatever works for you.

No, Alec, photo.net pays us each $100,000 a year to keep the discussions moving.

 

It's a good idea to know the various costs involved in doing business if you want to stay in business. Which I have, full time since 1978. Marc has been in business quite a while, too.

 

Dave Jenkins

Mpix (www.mpix.com/) has just began offering both hardbound and soft cover books. I've downloaded the software and am currently preparing to order a hard-cover book myself. Check them out. Mpix has a good reputation.

 

Dave Jenkins

Marc, with all due respect -- and I do respect you very much -- I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Also, please note that I am neither criticizing nor telling you how to run your business. I'm only stating how I run my business. I shot my first wedding in 1971 or '72, so I didn't just fall off the turnip truck. And yes, up to a point, more does equal better, at least in my experience.

 

IMO, it is your math that is off, not mine. I based my figures on the catalog prices of CPQ, a well-known professional lab located in Cleveland, TN, not far from me.

 

They charge $4.30 to process a 36-exposure roll. That, and the cost of the roll of film itself will get you a processed strip of film. At that point you are only out-of-pocket $124.50 for 15 rolls, but you have nothing to show your clients. For that, you'll either need proofs or high or low-res scans. Leaving proofs out of the equation, since a digital camera does not provide them, low-res scans are 25 cents each, or $9 for the roll. Add $2.50 for the CD and the total is now $19.80, or $297 for your 15 rolls. 20mgb scans are 58 cents and 30mgb scans are a dollar each.

 

Since it's getting pretty hard to find a lab that makes prints on an enlarger, and very expensive if you do, you are still going to need high-res scans from many of the images at some point. If you choose to go the low-res route initially, you will either pay for the price of a scan in the cost of the print or you will have to scan the negative yourself. How much is sitting in front of a computer scanning negatives worth to you?

 

To make another comparison, let's say I do get proofs from my digital files. If I shoot film and order processing and proofs from CPQ, it will cost me $21.12 per roll with low-res scans. Add $4 for the film and the cost is $25.12 per roll, or $376.80 for 15 rolls.

 

Since I can get good 4x6 proofs for 25 cents each from White House Custom Color, those 540 shots will cost me $135. I come out $241.80 ahead if I shoot digital. And no, I don't mind the computer time. I find it far preferable to sorting and numbering proofs, carding negatives, etc. Furthermore, in actual practice, while you will be paying for all 540 proofs, I will only be paying for 300 or so of them, for a total of $75, because I will edit my files before sending them to the lab. If we do paper proofs, my total expense will be about $75, while yours will be more than $375. I will keep $300 in my pocket.

 

As to other expenses involved in digital photography, as I stated, the cameras are generally more expensive, but not necessarily so. A 30D is a quite capable wedding camera, but costs less than a Leica M7 or a Hasselblad. As for computer equipment, you're going to need that in any case, because in the nature of the situation you're going to be dealing either with original digital files, or with scans. So, taken as a whole, the tools for film photography are at best only marginally less expensive.

Not to steal this thread, but I have to take exception to Robbie Caswell's lament:

 

"When is enough... enough? Does the cost of being a digital wedding photographer ever stop? . . .For me, given all it's blessings, digital is really a burden in many ways."

 

Yes, digital equipment is not cheap. But you don't have to buy every new thing that comes along. My cameras are a year-old 5D and a 2-1/2 year-old 20D. My computer is a four-year-old Sony Pentium 4. They're all still doing everything I need them to do.

 

The real expense that never stops is if you shoot film. Just to shoot ten rolls of 135-36 would cost $320-$350 per wedding for processing, 4x6 proofs, and scans from a good, standard, professional lab such as CPQ. The very cheapest option would be to get low-res scans and no paper proofs, but even that would cost more than $20 per roll, or $200+ per wedding if you shot only ten rolls -- and you would still need high-res scans from many of the images.

 

I shoot a lot more than that, as do most of us, so figure on $300 to $600 per wedding, every wedding, if you shoot film. THAT is the expense that never stops. If you shoot some or all medium format, it will cost even more.

 

And if you reply that I only shoot so much because I'm shooting digital -- well, that's the point, isn't it?! I'm shooting more because it's cheaper and I'm giving my clients a larger selection and a better product.

 

I have all the equipment I need to shoot weddings. But if I want to, I can buy a lot more equipment with the money I'm saving on film and processing. I could get another 5D, for instance, with the film savings from just five or six weddings. Or with the same five or six weddings I could replace my computer with the latest model and a wide-screen monitor. (But I don't need to, so the money goes in my pocket!)

 

Dave Jenkins

Ben, don't allow yourself to get in these down-to-the-wire situations. Require full and final payment at least 30 days prior to the wedding. I've been doing it that way for years.

Yes, Erwitt and Winogrand indeed are two very distinct photographers whose working styles were completely different, and whose goals for their photographs were different as well. But I believe that Erwitt is far the greater photographer. Elliott, whom I consider the greatest living photographer, has an uncanny ability to perceive and nail the significant moment. Winogrand, on the other hand, photographed like a machine gun firing almost at random. He took so many photos that the law of averages dictated there would be some good ones among them. That is essentially the conclusion arrived at by the people who edited the film for his final book.

Good grief! Neither Winogrand or any of the people mentioned above could hold a candle to Elliott Erwitt.

 

BTW, if anyone is interested, I have two copies of Winogrand's book "Stock Photographs: The Fort Worth Fat Stock Show and Rodeo." Both are the 1980 first edition. One copy is as new, still in original unopened shrink wrap, $75. The second copy is very good, in a worn dust jacket with one mended tear, $40.

 

I also have his 1969 book "The Animals." It's a first edition soft cover in fine condition, $45.

Capture One will have to be pried from my cold, dead hands!

 

With its keyboard controls and batch correction features, it is probably the fastest-working converter. The jpegs or tiffs it produces are at least as good as thoses from any other converter, and better than most.

 

Download the trial LE version -- it is relatively cheap and will do everything you want to do. E-mail me at djphoto@vol.com and I'll send you the keyboard controls.

Get a new retainer and give her a $400 print credit. That will seem very generous to her and make you look good, yet your cost for the actual merchandise will be relatively insignificant.

Amy, memory cards are no longer a problem. When I first switched to digital in 2003, I paid about $130 for one 512 megabyte (half-gig) card. Now, you can get *two* Sandisc Ultra-II 4-gig cards for that amount!

 

A 4-gig card will hold approximately 250 RAW files from my Canon 5D, which is a 12.8 megapixel camera.

If you get Capture One (the cheaper LE version will do everything you need) and learn a few simple keyboard controls, shooting RAW will greatly speed up your post-processing. It will also substantially increase your chances of salvaging a keeper from those exposure errors most of us occasionally make.

I've been in photography for more than 35 years and I can never remember a time when photographers were not complaining about Art Leather's customer service. I frankly don't know how they have managed to stay in business.

 

I've been using Zookbinders for about five years. My clients love the quality, and it's hard to imagine how any company could provice better service and turnaround. I even missed the Christmas cut-off deadline with three albums and still got them before Christmas! Zookbinders rocks!!!

Tell her you require full payment in advance by Visa or Mastercard. If she talks about cashier's checks, run, do not walk, RUN for the nearest exit.

Sara, if you liked shooting with a 35/f2 and an 85/f1.8 on your film cameras, try doing what I do. I work with a 35 on my 5D and a 50/f1.8 on my 20D. The 50 gives an 80mm field of view on the 20/30D, so it's very close to your 35/85 combo.

 

I can't really advise you on waiting to see what new things come down the pike in the next few months, but there are some bargains available on the 30D right now if you shop carefully. The 30D is an excellent camera, and the arrival of a new model will not make it less good than it is now.

Jammey, I haven't booked that date yet. It's only about a two-hour drive, and I have a son who lives there if I needed to stay overnight.

 

www.davejenkinsphotography.com

A second flash used properly gives even lighting with open shadows and a pleasing roundness to your subjects. An umbrella is nice, but cumbersome and not really necessary if you observe the following three critical points:

 

1. Placement: In a line-up such as a wedding group, if someone is standing a little forward of the others a second flash may cause his or her shadow to be cast on an adjacent person. This can be especially bad, for instance, in large groups where the attendants are in a wide descending "V" on the altar steps with the bride and groom at the top. (Or the bottom, for that matter.) For this reason, I keep the second flash just a little more than arms-length to my left or right.

 

2. Direction: If the second light is on your right, for example, I find it best to point it at about the middle of the left half of the group.

 

3. Power: Use similar flashes and set them both to put out the same amount of light. A higher-contrast arrangement, with the off-camera light putting out more power looks nice and is good for one or two people, if you're careful about where the shadows fall, but in larger groups it creates too much potential for problems with shadows cast in the wrong places.

 

With both flashes set for the same output, with one flash pointing directly at the subjects and one flash to the side, both sides of the subjects' faces receive one unit of light from the direct flash. In addition, one side of each face receives a second unit of light from the second flash. This creates a visually pleasing 2:1 ratio.

Sour grapes and balogna, guys!

 

Like Al Kaplan, I got my start in photography in the '60s, and even in the same place -- Miami. I shot my first wedding in 1971 with a Rolleicord Vb and M3 flashbulbs.

 

Most of my career has been in commercial, audio-visual, and editorial photography, although I did a few weddings most years. I began to increase my involvement in weddings in the late '90s.

 

I made the change to digital in 2003, and frankly, I can't tell you how glad I am to be rid of the fuss, muss, and bother of film. No more cutting and sleeving, no more piles and drawers full of unfiled negatives, no more long hours in the darkroom, no more scanning, no more hoping against hope that the lab will crop and print my color just the way I want it. (Fat chance, unless I want to pay for custom prints!)

 

Filing, once a major problem for me, is now easy because I have to create a filing system in order to download my photos.

 

Yes, the Photoshop learning curve is steep -- especially if you start at age 66, as I did. But it's paid off, because I can now deliver the product I've always wanted to deliver. Every print that leaves my studio these days is a custom print. And if I spend a lot of time on the computer, it's worth it to me. I would rather spend a day on the computer than an hour carding negs. (Old-timers will know what I mean.)

 

 

I find digital photography to be superior in just about every way. Advertising photos taken with my 10D for the Emory University Hospital System in 2003 ran one-half page in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and were enlarged to more than eight feet wide for a trade show. It doesn't happen any more, but in my first year with digital a few clients were a little hesitant. I showed them two similar 16x20 prints, one printed from a 10D jpeg and the other printed from a professionally scanned NPH negative shot with a Pentax 6x7 and asked them to tell me which was which. Even experienced commercial photographers and the art directors I work with flunked that test.

 

As for the issue of continually upgrading equipment, I simply ask "Why?" The release of a new camera does not make the old one any less good than it was. I used my Canon A2 film cameras from 1995 until 2003 because they did the job for me and I did not need the features of subsequent models. My 10Ds likewise did the job for me. When I upgraded, it was because the new models offered some genuine improvements that help me do a better job. Meanwhile, by not shooting film, I'm saving at least $300 on each wedding, which works out to $6000 for the year. I can buy a pair of 5Ds for that at current rebate prices and have enough left over for a lens or two.

 

 

Some photographers shoot both film and digital, and that's their perogative. As far as I'm concerned, mixing film and digital workflows gives you the worst of both worlds.

Black, short-sleeve, mock-turtle-neck shirt of dri-fit material; dark gray or black microfiber slacks; black Rockport lace-up wing-tips. I've never received anything but praise for my professional appearance and demeanor.

www.albumsinc.com

If you check your cameras and lenses, be sure to kiss them good-bye first.